[OSGeo-Conf] Video Recording FOSS4G

[Eli Adam]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Cameron Shorter
<cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Michael and Steven for this feedback on videos. I've picked out some
> of this content into the FOSS4G Cookbook [1], and linked back to this email
> thread. Would be good to update as you see fit.
>

Thanks for adding it to the Cookbook.

> One method I'd be interested to see experimented with is a "scrappy" cheap
> alternative, where attendees are invited to record the sessions they attend
> on their mobile phones, then upload to a central server afterwards. This
> could be used especially for Local or Regional events which don't have a
> budget for professional recording.

This could be interesting.

>
> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_Handbook#Videos
>
> Cameron
>
> On 15/9/18 3:59 am, michael terner wrote:
>
> Steven et al:
> Thanks for relaying the message on the videoing.
>
> To all:
> Indeed, providing the "LOC perspective on videoing" has been a bit of a
> personal cause as it was an extremely challenging part of Boston. I have
> posted to the Conference Dev on this previously and will continue to do so,
> as I believe it is an important and challenging issue that other LOCs are
> likely to face. Indeed, both Steven and Til have conveyed the core elements
> of the challenge. Here are a few additional points and a rationale for
> having OSGeo directly support the funding of videoing:
>
> Full disclosure: As a member of the Conference Dev Committee and as Charter
> Member, I fully support the goal of videoing as much of a FOSS4G conference
> as is possible. As a conference chair, the calculus is a bit more difficult.
>
> Videoing is not easy, nor inexpensive. It is to the Bonn Team's great
> credit, and also to their supplier Kaos Klub's (sic) credit that they made
> it look easy. And in the end, they were affordable.
> The Boston Team was so impressed with Kaos Klub that we tried earnestly to
> bring them to Boston. Ultimately, they were not able to commit to supporting
> us.
> The primary goal of an LOC is to provide the best possible experience for
> those who attend the event. Hosting a FOSS4G is first and foremost for the
> visitors to your city and your paying customers and sponsors.

I'll also add that the LOC is already very busy running a conference.
Also simultaneously running a sophisticated video program just piles
on work.

> Videoing adds great value to OSGeo in being able to keep the presentations
> in perpetuity and to use them in a marketing and educational context.
> Equally, OSGeo has a broader mandate than an LOC to widen the reach of a
> FOSS4G conference to people who are unable to attend.

Exactly correct!

> Yes, Steven is correct, in cities like Boston, there are limited options for
> videoing. At our venue, the venue required we use their in-house video for
> the main, plenary room (3 screens, multiple cameras, etc. etc.). The cost of
> that was in excess of $50,000. The estimated cost to video 11 rooms
> concurrently was also in excess of $50,000 (although we were free to pursue
> other options for those rooms), so the overall budget would have exceeded
> $100,000.
> While we knew the budget, we needed to make a decisions on the videoing
> approach 3 months before the conference. That is, at a time when we had only
> 500+ registrants and knew that we needed 800 registrations to break even. At
> that time, we were unable to make a commitment to spend $50,000 that we did
> not have in hand. And so we chose to do-it-yourself (DIY), which was
> estimated to cost $15,000 - $20,000 including buying the equipment.
> Guido led a team that did incredible work and we successfully captured video
> of 80%+ of the sessions DIY and with volunteers operating the equipment. But
> Guido's team was extremely stressed, almost to the point of breaking during
> the entire conference. And then, after the conference, we had huge piles of
> video to edit and merge (i.e., slides + speaker video) and upload.
> But in the end, we achieved a very healthy surplus. Had we known in advance
> that we would have that surplus, there is no possible way we would have
> chosen DIY. We would have spent the $50,000. (And indeed, we paid for
> processing and uploading the video by using a contractor after the
> conference.)
> From my POV, requiring videoing while providing no direct financial support,
> and as Til points out, at the same time pushing LOCs hard to maintain
> affordability, is neither fair, nor equitable to the LOC. Videoing is in
> OSGeo's direct interests (far more than the LOC's) and if it's very
> important, than OSGeo should be prepared to pay for it.
> The scheme that Steven and I proposed in an earlier draft is a fair approach
> that would have made an enormous difference to Boston. Basically, OSGeo
> loans the LOC the money to pay for videoing (or a large proportion of the
> videoing) and then the first bit of the surplus is used to pay back that
> loan. If there is no surplus, then loan is not repayed, and OSGeo does in
> fact pay for the videoing, to its own great benefit.
>
> If OSGeo is not willing to pay for the videoing, how is it fair to have the
> LOC (or rather, the paying attendees) pay for it? Indeed, in Dar es Salaam,
> the DLOC made the intentional choice of only videoing the plenary sessions
> and saving money. Money that was used to broaden attendance at the
> conference through discount tickets for local people. Part of that decision
> was informed by looking at the Boston video viewing stats. Indeed, our
> keynotes had many hundreds of views, but a typical session had 20 - 30
> viewings over the past year. That is non-trivial, but "how much" is that
> worth? I believe the DLOC made the right call in erring on bringing more
> people to Dar.
>
> I recognize and respect that this issue is not resolved. And the best
> possible solution (which Astrid described to Steven and myself) would be
> some kind of "video team" (or other resources) that could be deployed to
> FOSS4G conferences (where ever they may be held) and that could provide the
> videoing services at an affordable cost. I certainly hope that is what
> happens at Bucharest. But if such a solution is not possible, then I believe
> it is fair and appropriate that OSGeo invest in the videoing that it
> believes is important enough to state as a requirement in the RfP. Since it
> does not appear that OSGeo is yet comfortable making that commitment, then I
> would concur with Steven that video should not be made a "hard requirements"
> and should rather be listed as a "strong preference."

All this really covers it!  A great write up.

>
> I am confident we will find a good long term approach for this challenge.
> But the challenge is real and needs some action from OSGeo.
>
> Most sincerely, and over & out from the Dar es Salaam airport on my way back
> to Boston...
>
> MT
>
>> Am 14.09.2018 um 11:09 schrieb Steven Feldman:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> The funding of video recording is going to have to be left unresolved. At
>> the moment all that we are saying is that we want recording and that OSGeo
>> “may” provide a loan. The provision of recording is quite contentious
>> amongst recent chairs:
>>
>> Prior to Bonn there was no large scale video recording to my knowledge. At
>> Nottingham we had Audio recording

Just for reference, 2014 PDX streamed all sessions live and also video
recorded them.  Those videos can be accessed right from the schedule,
http://2014.foss4g.org/schedule/sessions/index.html

2015 Seoul, also has their videos indexed from the schedule.  I don't
remember if they live streamed.
https://www.meci.co.kr/societyevent/FOSS4G2015/program/program_1.asp?sMenu=pro1

Both 2014 and 2015 are on Vimeo.  https://vimeo.com/foss4g  TIB in
Hanover seems like a safe long term storage place and hopefully they
all get archived there.  It is difficult to gauge which videos will be
popular.  Lots of the 2014 normal sessions have ~80 views but there
are also a lot with 400+


>> Bonn set a very high standard thanks to the team of external specialist
>> volunteers who took on the task
>> Boston did an incredible job using home built systems but it was an
>> enormous strain on the LOC and the volunteers to get this done. An external
>> team would have cost close on $100k I believe (MT?) and that would have
>> added $80+ to the ticket price or eliminated most of the surplus returned to
>> OSGeo
>> Dar only recorded the keynotes and some sessions in the main hall, I
>> believe that this was due to a combination of cost and organisation (MI?)
>>
>>
>> People outside of the LOC are always keen that the proceedings are
>> recorded and made available to a wider audience, I understand why. The LOC
>> may well be concerned at the cost of hiring in a professional team to record
>> up to 9 streams of content or the administrative burden of trying to record
>> using an in-house team of volunteers.

I'm generally not in favor of adding more requirements on the LOCs.
Especially ones that further stress an uncertain budget.


>>
>> I’d prefer to leave recording as a strongly desired but not mandatory
>> requirement (also seek clarity on whether all sessions will  be recorded)

Sounds reasonable.

Best regards, Eli

>> and remove the section on an OSGeo loan as that will make matters more
>> complex. Others will have a different view. We need to make a decision and
>> get the RfP out. I can edit the video sections of the RfP once there is a
>> decision.
>> ______
>> Steven
>>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Shorter
> Technology Demystifier
> Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant
>
> M +61 (0) 419 142 254
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev